Myweponsg00d

I have a question... Today I was riding the city bus. I took my seat, looked across from me, and met eyes with this guy. So he says to me "Bout time they put new tanks in" And I was like...what? And then I see this gas station that was having its tanks replaced. So I'm like oh okay...normal guy...just wanted to mention this thing. But THEN he starts rambling on and on about the tanks. All kinds of random information like "Well the company goes and spends 2 grand on them tanks...but thats why theyre supposed to be replaced every decade. I had a brother who worked for an oil company, he says...blahblahblah" And I'm starting to notice that his thoughts seem really disconnected. Then I realise that he definitely has something wrong with him. I was on the bus for 30 minutes and that ENTIRE TIME he did not stop talking. Not even like 5 seconds between sentences. First it was the gas companies, then it was some talk about cars, then he was going on and on about his friend who works at the football stadium... Anyway, this isn't the first time this has happened to me...I was just wondering if anyone knows what this man's disorder was called?

Who says we gotta choose? I play lots of MMOs...

Someone I know (erm :???: ...) got a tempy ban for AHK. But he was using the program for scripts that would definitely replace a lot of work. If you are using it to gain the same funtionality as mousekeys, then you wont have a problem.

What about the jerk who hides and runs in and pickpockets like 10k runes off people? Then banks them and goes to watch TV

I miss when Rate This used to have more threads as good as this one 10/10

Magekillr I love you

Well then I really do not disagree with what you are choosing to think. Well, I mean, of course it isn't what I think. But, I do not see any harm (to society or to your sense of reality) in you replacing an unknown with a god, provided that people would accept reality if a greater truth was discovered. Basically, a god in your sense, is not a delusion of reality, but rather it is your psychological coping mechanism with the concept of nothingness. My main concern with religion is the type of religion that is trying to stop such things like teaching evolution in schools. This is the type of religion that spits in the face of evidence. Or the type that thinks that whatever mysteries happen to plague their particular generation is the place where god steps in and always will step in. (For instance, people of our generation thinking that everything up to the big bang sounds nice, but then where science has no theory, they believe god is the cause. Then these people grow up, have children, and tell them that god created the big bang, when maybe we couldve found evidence by then that says otherwise) It sounds like you are a god believer in the way that Einstein was a god believer (or at least closely. Einstein's views on "god" were very complicated and I cant be certain what his final "conclusions" were without completeing some more readings. they weren't quite a "god placeholder" but i think it was something similar) I do not wish to start a crusade against anyone who acknowledges the existence of evidence, and allows for the fact that one day we could explain the things that are currently "beyond reason".

I just thought I would add to you all about the first one. My mother had reconstructive foot surgery to remove 3 really messed up hammer toes, and a very extreme bunyon that detrimented her walking. She had the first cast. So obviously its not just for ankle related stuff. Though thinking about it logically, I cant actually think about why she would have that cast on her foot when all the stuff was up near the toes. Though I guess the ligaments in the toes run all the way up to the ankle. I dunno just thought I would addd that the first cast also applies to foot surgery. (apparently) :thumbup:

Unfortunately (or should I say fortunately, for my side at least) we have already begun to determine the nature of some things that defy our logic, or at least definitely used to defy our logic. Three instances: general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics. General relativity refers to the effect that time passes differently depending on the mass of nearby objects. Special relativity accounts for the fact that time passes more slowly on faster moving objects. And quantum mechianics accounts for the "movement" of elementary particles. Any elementary particle does not move in the way that, say, a ball does. You cannot talk about the trajectory of a photon, you can only say how likely it would have been to find a photon at any one time. The photon isn't anywhere until you attempt to observe it. Would this make sense to people who lived 200 years ago? I would guess that it probably wouldnt make sense. Right now it doesn't make sense that something could have once come from absolutely nothing, but there is no reason to assume that it is impossible to have happened, because we have observed other such events such as a photon being nowhere and somewhere at the same time. I suppose what you are saying is just that religion isn't a completely resentful thing through history. I thought that you were attempting to use this to argue for the belief in god, but it doesnt appear that you are. I was trying to argue against why it would be silly to use the fruits of theism as a reason to believe. If thats what you were trying to say, then I would still debate this point. But if it wasnt, then I dont think that we actually have a debate to be had here. Again I think this falls into the point above. I assumed you were using it as an argument for existence, but I think again you were just trying to show that good things have happened to come from religious people. I'd be glad to listen if that thread ever arises (which...I thought debates about religion were actually against the rules on this board? :razz:). But there is no reason to assume that there will never be a fact that describes the origin of absolutely everything. But, correct me if I'm wrong...but are you saying that instead of looking at the lack of evidence and saying "It wouldn't be right for me to have an opinion on this, since there is no reason to judge based on a lack of evidence" you are saying "There is no evidence, and rather than thinking nothing, I would rather think that God is the answer"? If that is true, then suppose science does come up with conclusive evidence for what happened before the big bang, but then has another gap, is that where god steps in for you again? If that is true, then what you are suggesting is that you do not believe that god is THE answer. But rather, instead of having no answer, you will temporarily have god? These are all sincere questions by the way. I was very intrigued by your last statement of "therefore I personally prefer to believe in something rather than nothing." and I just needed to clarify whether you actually believe that god is, and always will be, the answer to what happened before the big bang. Or, if you are sort of using him as a "placeholder" at least until we can determine some evidence.

It is not my interpretation of atheism. It is what any leading atheists believe. The misconception that atheist have a firm, immovable disbelief in god comes from religious people who have had their biased influence on what public opinion should be of atheism. One of the most prominent atheists in the world, Richard Dawkins, in his one book has a chapter titles "Why there almost certainly is no god". No atheist who is using proper reasoning would say that he has a firm belief that god is impossible, rather that he does not believe in god simply because there is not evidence. It is not a disbelief in god based on principle. What you say is true, but we should stop at that true statement. God is used as an illogical attempt at a solution, when we have no evidence to form a logical solution. Also, further, god doesn't solve the problem either. Where did he come from? If he didnt come from anywhere, then why would the universe need to come from anywhere? If a super intelligent being can exist without a creator, why couldn't a tiny little singularity exist in a vast space of nothingness without a creator? It still is not a cause and effect relationship. If these people acted in the name of the "virtual reality" principle then you could say the same thing about them. If they acted on the flying sphatteti monster, you could say the same thing about him. It is by sheer accident that these people alligned themselves with the thought of an intelligent man creating the universe. They could've alligned themselves with an infinite number of different theories about why it is right to be good. And if somebody saved your life in the name of the flying-butt-unicorn, would that make you respect the theory of the flying-butt-unicorn? So then, logically, what reason is there to perfer "God" instead of the theory of being asleep in a virtual reality machine that will show no evidence of its existence? Was it a personal preference on whether the workings of the human heart were magical or scientific? Is it a personal preference whether getting sick is a cause of magic vs. something real that we can manipulate? Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it makes sense to have a "personal preference" on whether magic caused it or whether something natural caused it. If you have children, imagine that they are watching a pendulum swing back and forth. Do you want them to learn about how it works, or would you rather them just "believe" that pendulum fairies make pendulums swing? And what about yourself? When you see two magnets pulled together, do you assume that some type of ghost is in the room holding the objects together? Or do you think that a natural cause is more likely? There are a million things about our world that we would not be able to understand, yet we don't use a supernatural entity to explain them. We didn't understand how an elementary particle can be "somewhere" yet "nowhere" at the same time, but we did not say "Oh there must be a spirit that randomly decides where the electrons must be" So why is it that only for the origin of things, is it "okay" to believe that some type of supernatural thing caused it? If it was literally any other phenomenon in the world, we expect there to be a science behind it. Yet for where things come from, a MAJORITY just randomly decide that it is okay to "believe" or "perfer" theories. Well I'll tell you what, I don't freaking "perfer" the explanations of quantum theory, in fact theyre quite ridiculous. But it predicts what happens in the world, and it allows us to advance in technology.

And how about the invisible asteroid? Also the asteroid can only collide with Earth objects. And the asteroid is undetectable by any other means. Therefore, according to your 50-50 logic, there is a 50-50 chance of an asteroid coming to hit your town tomorrow...oh wait, I made the theory up yesterday. That means theres a 50% chance of it coming today! Run away! Just because something is unprovable does not give it a 50% chance of being correct. Also, what the hell? What about all of the other theories for why the universe exists? What if "universes" are the brains of an enormous lifeform. The stars are the brain cells. What if the universe as we see it is actually a computer simulation? Now we are up to 4 theories and since each theory is equally probable (according to your logic) that means that now there is only a 25% chance that God believers are correct. If I came up with 6 more theories, they would all have to be equiprobable (by your logic, not mine), and then each of us only has a 10% chance of being right. There are an infinite number of theories possible for what the universe is, which would mean that there is now a 1 in ininifty chance that either of us is correct, which means then that we both have a 0% chance of being right. (again this is only using your logic that each theory for the origin of the universe is equiprobable) Do you even know what the definition of athiesm is? Athiesm means rejection of the idea of a god. For example - I consider myself a Thiest - I beleive firmly in a God - but I don't follow a religion. From dictionary.com: *snip* But my point is that there is nothing particular about the god theory. Suppose, for instance, it became largely popular to think that the universe is a computer simulation. (and suppose this theory becomes as popular as religion) However, there was not a shred of viable evidence that supports the theory. This "virtual reality theory" would become the new "religion" and "atheists" would be against that "theory." What I am saying is that atheists do not deny god based on principle alone. If we live in a universe where god freely interacted with us (like, stuck giant hands down out of the sky and took us around to explore the universe) then atheists would not be people who sit around and reject his existence. Atheism is not a lack of belief in the particular theory of god, an atheist would reject any theory for which there is no evidence. Yet you've constantly said there is no proof or evidence... What do you mean? There is evidence for the big bang. If we are talking about what happened before the big bang, there is no evidence, and thus I HAVE NO THEORY. Why should we pretend that we have knowledge when we actually know nothing? I find it ridiculous and incredibly narrow-minded that you seem to have decided that every person who believes in God has blindly followed what other people are telling them, and has never thought for themselves. Thousands of the greatest scientific, artistic, and brilliant minds over the history of mankind have been religious, yet you somehow consider yourself above them intellectually simply because you're atheist? I retract my above comment. I do not actually believe that any theist simply does not think. Thinking can happen in many ways. My above comment happened out of anger and not out of clear thinking. What good? Seriously? Our entire legal system's origins were based on the laws of the church Based on the laws of the church. This DOES NOT mean that these laws came about due to THE PRINCIPLE of religion (that is, the irrational, blind belief in something) And some of the most influential people of the world were also atheists. I dont think that atheism, theism, deism, or anything of the sort will directly harm someone's ability to influence the world in a positive (or negative) way. We dont just make up stuff because we are afraid we might not ever find the answer. If we did that elsewhere, things like modern medicine would be severely behind where they are right now. Again, I don't think we came from nowhere, I just think that we have no right to comment on where the big bang originated because theres no evidence.

So then I suppose you also think that theres no point in discussing how deep the ocean is? Or how fast light moves? Or how fast sound moves? Or whether the sky is blue? Or why we see the phases of the moon? Every single thing in the world is uncertain. However, this does not mean that each person is equally right in choosing any theory. Just because god COULD exist does not mean there is a 50% chance that he does exist, just like there is not a 50% chance of a unicorn running past your window right now. You COULD be right if you believe that he will run past right now, but that doesn't make it 50% likely. You would be an idiot to live your life on the assumption that you should prepare for a unicorn attack. Again I refer you to the above about the liklihood that god, or ANYTHING, exists. Theres no evidence to show you that your town wont be annihilated tomorrow by an invisible asteroid. Should you start evacuating? Theres a difference between thinking that something MIGHT exist, and living ones life on the assumption that it DOES exist. Also, atheism DOES NOT mean outward rejection of god. If we saw something like a giant man floating around in the sky, and he talked to us, and explained things to us, and took us to distant galaxies, atheists would not deny this particular existence (yes, this example is ridiculous. it is just an example). Atheism is the rejection of the idea of religion, that one should throw away logic and reason in favor of blind faith. If "religion" just so happened to refer to blindly believing in the existence of some other thing, we would reject that too. Atheism is not specifically a rejection of the idea of a god. Also I do not know anything 100% for certain, as I have said before. In a way, maybe I believe in some things more than you. Would you say that santa claus 100% does not exist? The easter bunny? Allah? Thor? Zeus? Would you say that there is a 100% chance that no unicorns are on this earth? Pixies? Vampires? I wont assume that you do before you get a chance to answer. And finally I have never claimed to be more intelligent. I have claimed to be more logical, rational, and also more concerned with reality. Perhaps you have only made the assumption that anyone who rejects logic, reason, and reality must be less intelligent. To the best of my recollection, I have not said this.

You realize this is terribly hypocritical, as you believe that your atheistic beliefs are a theory you always hold correct despite whatever evidence there may be. Atheism is not a theory, it is a lack of a theory. Atheism means you are without religion. (with religion referring to a devotion/belief/faith in some type of supernatural god or diety. I know that many people do not consider this to be theism, but its the type of theism that atheism refers to) Atheism means that I will live my life based on whatever it is that is real, and supported by evidence. "a theory you always hold correct despite whatever evidence there may be" What type of evidence would contradict a belief in whatever has the most supporting evidence? I'm not even sure your sentence makes sense. Saru: 1) Ok you missed my point. -So then restate your point. Many people miss a lot of points on here, and we dont respond simply by saying "you missed it..." We then elaborate, restate, and continue to support our beliefs. 2) No you don't know there's a logical flaw, please tell us and I will again, eat my words if you're right. -You are right, I dont KNOW. But also I dont KNOW that there isnt a unicorn standing behind me right now. It would have been more correct for me to say "I have an extreme certainty that I can disprove you" but I get sick of being so careful with language that essentially means the same thing. 3) Yea that was a typo. You ask me to defend my viewpoints, but defend them against what? Your viewpoints? Facts? logic? Rationality? I most certainly would, but again, you wouldn't be giving them an earnest look at, and try to comprehend them. And thats the key point in debating, is understanding the other side. -I would read them, try to see the logic in them, and respond. You dont necessarily need to defend them against a particular thing. By "defend" i mean to simply state what you think, and your reasons for thinking that way. Claim and support 4) I've not given any of my beliefs on this topic. Though I did say I think the Creationist story is close to the big bang, but thats it. And you named it yourself, you're not going to say "but what about?" You're going to say "No. THIS IS IT. You're WRONG." And thats what I mean by telling vs. debating. -I don't think I have said anywhere that the big bang is the only thing that could possibly be correct. 5) You've supported your claims against ALG, none against mine. -You just said in #4 "I've not given any of my beliefs on this topic" so I'm not sure how I should support anything against you when you aren't making any arguments against me. 6) Hmmm. I feel bad for the essays you're forced to read. Poor works of art, they have no idea they are about to be destroyed by your eyes. -What? 6a) Didn't know what the above line was about? Your reading comprehension sucks. While I may not write the most coherent posts, cripes at least I can read. -Theres a difference between reading comprehension and magically understanding what somebody means to write. Cow bland chew if thrown too far with apple drinks quickly. Dont understand what I mean? Wow apparently you can't read. And what evidence leads you to know this? Also: what if I say "I know in my heart that god does not exist"? Surely one of us must be correct. Neither argument has even the slightest integrity. PS I'm going to sleep cause I gotta be up in 6 hours. Seeya tomorrow

Again it is not MY way. I do not have beliefs in any one thing. I do not believe in evolution, I believe in whatever thing currently has the most evidence. It just so happens that evolution is the currently accepted model. This is where my "beliefs" differ from your "beliefs". Belief in a god is an incredibly narrow thing to believe in. Evolution is not the only way. There are an infinite number of ways that humans could have come into existence, and if any of those ways had a landslide of evidence I would believe in it. If god had the most evidence, I would not deny his existence. But, if there was scientific evidence of a god, it would be considered scientific to believe in him. Scientists would work on understanding his existence. If you firmly believe that any supernatural being exists, created anything, interferes with destinies, then yes I already know that there is a logical flaw. I have devoted most of my life to reading books about science and religion, and have had plenty of debates on the issue. I know that there is absolutely no logical reason to firmly believe that a god exists. I've heard all the "reasons" before, and none of them are sound reasons. Got lost in your writing here. Not sure what you meant to say Actually all you have done so far has been telling. You are just telling your beliefs without giving any support for the reasons you come to your conclusions. Discussions don't just involve someone saying "Hi I think ____" and the other person says "Oh wow, cool, I think ____" "Oh really? Nice to meet you, bye". A discussion would be "I think that _____ because _____" and then the other person can say "But what about ______?" I've attempted to debate. I'm still debating and have been debating by making claims and supporting them. If being "open minded" means "listening to what you have to say and not providing you with evidence that will conflict with your faith" then I guess I wont be "open minded." You are responsible for defending your beliefs. If you cant defend a belief then you have no reason to believe it.

See, I see it the opposite way. People who refer to things by there brand names "just a second, I need to xerox these papers before the cleaner turns on the hoover, get me a pepsi while i'm xeroxing these papers" Coca-Cola/Pepsi they're basically the same thing, I think the problem your making is assuming that coke or cola is a brand name. Coke refers to Coca-Cola, as far as I know. I think its funny that you would get some pretty strange looks if you went somewhere and said "I'll have a cola please!" (since a cola is technically the type of beverage that Pepsi and Coca Cola are)

But there is nothing special about my beliefs. I would not hold onto what I think is true. I would not be an evolutionist if there were compelling evidence that ended up disproving evolution. If there was compelling evidence of a god, for instance him coming out of the sky and talking to us and openly communicating with us throughout history, I would not deny him. I would want to study his existance. The problem is with people who believe that a certain theory is correct and will always be correct despite whatever evidence there ever will be. Okay and those people in the past were obviously wrong. I dont see where this is going

I thought that only happens to me. I just wake up the first time to avoid the [cabbage]ty feeling afterwards. Lmfao I always think "Wow I feel good now, I cant wait to feel even better in 30 minutes!" And it never happens. Maybe some day I will learn to just get up the first time...

If he is beyond mortal comprehension then why would we waste our time speaking with him? What is the point of prayer, then? You can't possibly comprehend how he will repond. Again, science is not a belief system. I do not hold beliefs or faiths. I see things that occur in the world, and I live my life based on facts that things exist or do not exist. Can you show me conclusive evidence that the world isn't going to explode tomorrow? Can you show me conclusive evidence that an invisible asteroid is not on its way to earth? Just because something has not been disproven does not mean that it would be equally logical to live your life on the presumption that it could be correct. There are an infinite number of things that could be happening right now that cannot be proven. We cannot prove that an invisible asteroid will not hit new york city in 12 hours. Should we start evacuating? We also cannot disprove god, and that also is not a reason to assume that he exists. So you're saying that everything people dont know about the world should just be substituted by "god" until we know how they work? What does that accomplish?

No. Logic is not believing what the same crowd believes. Logic is logic. Take a class in logic, read a book in logic. A thought can be proven to be illogical or irrational. Not ALL thoughts can be proven illogical. However, "beliefs" about reality can certainly be proven to be illogical due to the fact that there is physical, real, tangible evidence that proves the contrary. There are also jumps in logic. If you would tell me the support that you have for your beliefs I could describe to you exactly where the objective logical error has occurred. However you take the strange, unsatisfying, easy way out and give some more BS about "oh no I wont waste my time..." Well if you're not going to "waste your time" (aka, DEFENDING YOUR VIEWPOINT) then don't even bother posting anything. If youre not going to discuss a topic then don't even post in a discussion board. Or if you arent planning on discussing something you should preface your post by saying: "I do not plan on elaborating on any of my viewpoints" That way, every sane person could just skip your ramblings since there is nothing to discuss, since you refuse to discuss it.

Saru, just stop making "jokes". They dont make any sense, and I have no idea how anything you said shows any evidence of joking. Nobody understands wtf you are talking about.

I merely want people to admit that things that EXIST must have evidence of their existence. If somebody wants to "believe" in a "god" that guides their personal morals then I do not have a problem with that. However, there is a large problem with people being allowed to have a faith about something that is of a physical nature. You can't just jump off a cliff and believe that gravity won't pull you down. There are certain things that can be correct without physical evidence. However, nothing can be real (in the sense that it is a physical object somewhere) without physical evidence. Then you either looked at the wrong evidence or used flawed logic. Also, the evidence IS THERE. You can at least look at it and interpret it. If you look at a fossil, you will see the same fossil that everyone else does. Many people cite "religious visions" as evidence for god, but nobody has any way of verifying that this evidence ever existed. You can see the evidence that supports my argument, but I can't see yours. I didnt say that the religion corresponded with the particular theory. I was suggesting random mythical beings as being the creator of the universe, because they are all equally as likely. Regardless of what the specific mythologies might have to say. Those were the ones that came to mind.

Saru, so much of what you said in the past couple posts is so illogical and poorly reasoned that I don't even know how to respond to your writings. I pity any teachers you have who have to read any of your essays because you have no understanding of logical devices, hypothetical scenarios, or claim and support in writing.

I think perhaps we are disagreeing on the linguistic use of the word "discrimination"? What I mean is that it is unfair for a theist to say that the muslim god exists, but the Greek gods do no exist. Why should anyone assume that one particular religion is correct? They all have the same ammount of evidence Again, the fsm does not disprove the notion of faith, it disproves the idea that one should believe in any one particular idea that has no evidence. For instance, if someone prays to a certain god, the FSM can be used to suggest that that person is being awfully close minded, because the FSM is equally as probable of a god. The very point is that we cannot disprove the existence of FSM. The point is that he is equally as likely as any other god, and the "theory" deserves equal respect It is not MY logical view of the universe, it is the view that anyone would have if they look at the proof and evidence. They believe in some type of magical/supernatural being that has either created something or influences daily events or protects them. This being has no evidence to support its existence, and thus the religious people must have faith in it. Correct?

Right, which brings us back to the bigotry issue again. is it bigotry? If the black people came into your apartment complex, slaughtered your women, and kidnapped your children? Would you still consider it bigotry? (Assuming you're talking about the same scenario I am) I would consider it bigotry if the people moving in were completely unrelated to the people to the murderers except for the fact that they had the same skin color.

My beliefs are based on physical evidence that any human being is free to go look at. This evidence exists in what we call reality. Where is the evidence for religion? Where is the basis of religion that is founded on evidence that exists in reality? Where is the evidence that I can go look at that suggests the presence of an intelligent creator? Yes, I'm using it against the existence of any specific gods, but it does not disprove the idea of an unprovable creator. The FSM himself is a god that cannot be disproven. You actually got the idea all wrong. The idea isnt that the FSM DOESNT exist, the idea is that theres no way we can DISPROVE his existence. If we are going to run around believing that a god created adam and eve, we might as well believe in the FSM, we might as well believe in unicorns, etc. That is the point of the FSM, he is a tool to prove that it is idiotic to have blind faith about any specific theory. But it does not disprove faith itself. I think that any theist is descriminatory, because the idea of ANY god is equally as probable. You might as well believe in every single illogical unprovable theory for the creation of the universe. I am not descriminatory, because I only believe in the theory that is the most probable.